Epstein Secrets

2001) (“The Supreme Court has recognized that the First Amendment offers protection to both speakers and those wishing to receive speech.”); see also Stephens v. Cty. ofAlbemarle, Va., 524 F.3d 485,492 (4th Cir. 2008) (providing that a plaintiff has “standing to assert a right to receive speech” by “showing

isclosure “will be the product of their own conduct, and not the consequence of an unrestrained body of misguided citizens.” Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Marko, 352 So. 2d 518 (1977) (“The benefits to be derived from this extraordinary exercise in citizen participation [in the grand jury] would be severely l

2001) (“The Supreme Court has recognized that the First Amendment offers protection to both speakers and those wishing to receive speech.”); see also Stephens v. Cnty. of Albemarle, VA, 524 F.3d 485, 492 (4th Cir. 2008) (providing that a plaintiff has “standing to assert a right to receive speech” by “show[

isclosure] will be the product of their own conduct, and hot the consequence of ah unrestrained body of misguided citizens.” Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Marko, 352 So.2d 518, 523 (Fla. 1977). The decision in Marko emphasized that a grand jury’s important role in “exposing] official misconduct” precludes res

ger Borman Douglas Wyler Katherine Marie Clemente Stephen A. Mendelsohn Brigid Finerty Cech Samole Jennifer

fferent context, the Florida Supreme Court noted that the legislature controls the publication of grand jury materials. Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. Marko, 352 So. 2d 518, 520–21 (Fla. 1977) (“It is undoubtedly for this reason that the legislature has now afforded an opportunity to prevent the publica

2001) (“The Supreme Court has recognized that the First Amendment offers protection to both speakers and those wishing to receive speech.”); see also Stephens v. Cty. ofAlbemarle, Va., 524 F.3d 485,492 (4th Cir. 2008) (providing that a plaintiff has “standing to assert a right to receive speech” by “showing

isclosure “will be the product of their own conduct, and not the consequence of an unrestrained body of misguided citizens.” Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Marko, 352 So. 2d 518 (1977) (“The benefits to be derived from this extraordinary exercise in citizen participation [in the grand jury] would be severely l